|
Radish posted:Also people get super pissed when they go on strike and parents don't get their free baby sitters. A high school teacher told me a story about back when their union was bargaining for more benefits or higher pay, instead of going on strike they simple clocked out exactly when they were supposed to. Parents got really mad their kids weren't getting effectively free tutoring after school and a lot of the clubs couldn't be supervised. Teachers deserve high pay for this very reason, IMO. The need for one or both parents to work more and more is killing social interactivity between families which kills communication and socialities between just normal people. Soon, everyone is your enemy. Even as a snot nosed motherfucker I still recognized that teaching is one of the most ridiculously stressful and needed jobs on the planet. I would love to get my teaching cert if I can ever afford college without putting myself into life ending debt. Armani fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Jan 23, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
joeburz posted:You don't have to be a pedant, everyone knows he meant student metrics as the data in question. There are other reasons of course, like retention, but that's only good if you want to retain everybody. quote:As for the the notion that our analytical methods for measuring teacher performance are viable at the current time, I'd be interested to hear more about that position. It may or may not be true, but I'm wondering if there is anything in particular bringing you to that position or if it's just a gut feeling. First, this entire thing stinks of defensive maneuvering, it's like listening to a bad salesman complaining about commission or gross margin: The only metrics they think are worthwhile are the ones that either say nothing about their performance, or aren't tracked. Considering that this is coming from an organization that has no vested interest in work quality and plenty of vested interest in keeping people hired, I'm forced to be extremely skeptical. Second, while the evidence is a bit scarce due to the recency of widespread evaluation programs being implemented, what research has been done on VAM-based approaches has mostly been favorable in suggesting that it's improving teacher quality. There are still problems with implementation stupidity not accounting for economic differences well, but that happens with seniority anyway (i.e. high-poverty schools typically have younger teachers, who are first in line to get laid off, causing heavy churn), and it's an addressable problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I realize that merit pay as it actually gets proposed is mostly sugar-coating from politicians that want to scuttle the public education system entirely, but the idea that we don't know enough to develop objective standards that correlate well to educational outcomes when we have more data and more tools to analyze it than ever is ridiculous. Test scores being "meaningless" is the same flavor of bullshit. Teacher X is a 'highly effective' teacher who has had a steadily improving testing rate over the last 3 years. Her students are fond of her and they historically make (and keep) gains while in her class. This year, Teacher X is given an influx of ESL students. She successfully gets them from a 1st grade level of proficiency to a 6th grade level (they can read, decode, discuss and in some cases analyze independently). When they test, they score poorly due to a number of factors. (Remember, Theyre held to the same standard as all students in the grade they're approximately in). Her other students maintain her historic trend of improvement, though gains are very very small this year. Is Teacher X lauded for the marked improvement in the EL learners? Or is she critiqued for her poor test results? Guess which one currently happens? We dont push for merit pay for administrators, or educational bureaucrats. Why only the teachers? We can't grade our superintendent of education (that happens in a closed session of the school board), but he sure as hell pushes for LA teacher rankings to be public. Biggest problem with merit pay (aside from political manipulation and union busting and teacher bashing) is that it rewards or punishes the failures/successes of teachers before you. Johnny never achieved reading proficiency at level because he was socially promoted? Now he doesn't have the skills to analyze the history text and produce responses to his assignment questions? Youre hosed! Jane had a stable and supportive home that stressed reading and math skills, and received help from her parents often? Jackpot! Heck, its not all the kids fault. Sometimes the standards used to educate them suck. Did you know that Ron Reagan was responsible for the fall of the soviet union through his policies? Because up until this year, that was codified into the California Social Studies standards...
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Second, while the evidence is a bit scarce due to the recency of widespread evaluation programs being implemented, what research has been done on VAM-based approaches has mostly been favorable in suggesting that it's improving teacher quality. There are still problems with implementation stupidity not accounting for economic differences well, but that happens with seniority anyway (i.e. high-poverty schools typically have younger teachers, who are first in line to get laid off, causing heavy churn), and it's an addressable problem. Yeah, about VAM reliability... http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/analysis-la-times-2011 Yo, we make sure teachers are highly effective, highly qualified. Make sure they have a masters (in California at least) and give them a 2 year support program when they start working to make sure they're doing the best they can. Do we really need to follow them around and give them gold stars or frowny faces, or can we treat them as professionals and leave the reviews to teachers, students and fellow educators? Teacher performance metrics basically assume everyone's an idiot that has to be looked after and rated. It takes any kind of art out of the job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm curious to hear people's impression of Navarette v. California. Frankly, I don't think the tip here was sufficient to allow the stop. Not so much because anonymous tips can't give rise to reasonable suspicion (because they can, if there is sufficient indicia of reliability), but because the LEOs in this case followed Navarette for five miles before stopping him (which is valid as not a search or seizure under the 4A), and at no point during that five mile stretch was the tip's assertion of illegality corroborated. The LEOs own observations undercut the reliability of the anonymous tip, and therefore no reasonable suspicion existed. I'm predicting Scalia will be #5 (or #6, depending on how Breyer feels about this particular issue and if the win goes to California, depending on how Kennedy feels about this particular issue if the win goes to Navarette) who writes the opinion, regardless of which way it rolls out. If not Scalia, then Breyer or Kennedy. Also, I own a crystal ball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:Using metrics to justify compensation for anything except for simple repetitive tasks has been shown to not be effective, and in most cases counter productive, in almost every study done in the last 30 years. I'd like to see this data.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I'm predicting Scalia will be #5 (or #6, depending on how Breyer feels about this particular issue and if the win goes to California, depending on how Kennedy feels about this particular issue if the win goes to Navarette) who writes the opinion, regardless of which way it rolls out. If not Scalia, then Breyer or Kennedy. Also, I own a crystal ball.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I'm not sure what the rationale for ruling in favor of California would even be. Exigent circumstances still require probable cause, so this looks like a Florida v. J.L. rerun. It's not an exigent circumstances case. It's far more analogous to a Terry stop, which only requires reasonable suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I've always assumed the biggest problem with standardized testing is that they're absurdly poorly designed and teach skills that often must be forgotten five minutes after the test is over so the students can be taught the actual way of doing things like writing. I agree with this, and I think it hints at a deeper problem. Before we can talk measurements, we need to have an idea of what we're trying to accomplish. Some parts of the common core seem pretty reasonable: http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/3/MD They lay out some tasks that they think kids should be able to accomplish. And kids can do them, or the can't. I like this sort of thing because it provides a good answer for why we're spending valuable education time on this class instead of some other class. Once we've got well-defined goals, and made sure that the goals are things we actually care about, I feel like it should be possible to start defining success in a reasonable way. We could address most of the common criticisms by having kids take questions from multiple-levels of the standard. That way, we could see which students are getting a head start on the next year's material. And we could tell where students are filling in gaps in knowledge about things covered in previous years. This could make it easy to measure how much kids are improving during their time with a particular teacher. And they'd remove a lot of the perverse incentives that come from only testing the current year. (Teachers would have an incentive to move on to advanced material, instead of teaching test-tricks to ensure that students don't make the odd mistake on largely mastered stuff)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:I agree with this, and I think it hints at a deeper problem. The problem is that kids perform (or don't perform) for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with the teacher. Kids knowing they can gently caress over a teacher by deliberately doing badly on a test can be a pretty good incentive for poor performance, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Frankly, I don't think the tip here was sufficient to allow the stop. Not so much because anonymous tips can't give rise to reasonable suspicion (because they can, if there is sufficient indicia of reliability), but because the LEOs in this case followed Navarette for five miles before stopping him (which is valid as not a search or seizure under the 4A), and at no point during that five mile stretch was the tip's assertion of illegality corroborated. The LEOs own observations undercut the reliability of the anonymous tip, and therefore no reasonable suspicion existed. That's what's confusing me about the whole argument. Reckless driving is a visible crime. It's like speeding. How could a car be driving recklessly without breaking any laws, or creating any articulable reason to stop the vehicle? Claims about intoxication seem to indict the state's definition of 'intoxication' generally. If de-jure intoxicated people drive in an objectively safe way, then de-jure intoxication stops being a public-safety issue. Especially since they're arguing that this happens so frequently that they can reasonably suspect that any given confirmed-safe driver is technically 'intoxicated'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The problem is that kids perform (or don't perform) for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with the teacher. Kids knowing they can gently caress over a teacher by deliberately doing badly on a test can be a pretty good incentive for poor performance, too. In statistics, I'd call this a random error. We could correct for it in a few ways. There are systemic biases. Kids from poor areas are under a lot more stresses than other kids. They'd tend to perform worse, even given equal teachers. Fortunately, each school knows its own demographics, and can just control for that kind of stuff with a co-variate. Plus, if you're measuring improvement, you'd be accounting for it directly. These kids would have been performing worse in past years. And it'd be totally fair to weight improvement based on kids previous performance. (E.g. "A 1% improvement to kids at the 15th quantile is worth 1.5 points") Teachers might get unlucky. But the law of large numbers kicks in after a bit, and performance shouldn't be a single-year thing. So, if the event's a one-off, it should average out. If one teacher is systematically inspiring their students to intentionally-fail their test scores, then I think that's something that would raise a ton of red flags. Especially since we could use test-scores (from a well-designed test) in students' grades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
No really I have spent a long long time thinking about tying standardized test scores for students to teacher ability and it is impossible to do on any scale that would be needed to tie pay to it. But really just look at what you are proposing: Determining the ability of one individual by measuring the performance of another individual. It doesn't make any sense. And - I am guessing - even if you could somehow plot teacher performance based on test scores (just for the sake of argument let's say it is possible) I bet it would pretty nearly correlate with years served anyway. euphronius fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:But really just look at what you are proposing: Determining the ability of one individual by measuring the performance of another individual. It doesn't make any sense. I'm determining the ability of one individual my measuring the average improvement they create in a large number of other individuals. This is a reasonable, normal thing that we do in tons of other professions. Take doctors, managers, and coaches as examples. And what are teachers trying to do, if they're not trying to increase the abilities of their students? The reasonable objection to tests is that they don't measure the sorts of ability we care about. That's a totally fair objection. But my reaction is that instead of accepting bad metrics, the profession should set out what they're trying to accomplish, highlight the stuff that they think is important, and then try to teach to that. E: WRT your edit, if this is something you've spent a lot of time looking into, could you show me the papers that correlate ability with tenure? The ones I remember have said that variance has more to do with individual fixed effects. But it'll be a few hours before I'm at a proper internet connection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Coaches aren't measured on Joe Leftfielders ability to .300 after hitting .290 or whatever or Dave Receivers ability to catch 80 balls rather than 90 balls. Even if they were, that is completely different as athletes are motivated and in effective support systems where the coach may have an effect that isn't completely overridden by other effects, like poverty, or being 9 years old, or not being motivated to take a test. Moreover, Coaches spend hours and hours a day with an athlete, over a time of years. Teachers get a kid for 40 minutes, for nine months, once in their life. Of the examples you mentioned though, that is probably the closest analogy to teachers. Managers are usually judged based on economic metrics, which does not analogize to student standardized test scores at all. Doctors are sometimes measured on health outcomes, but that has little to do with the "performance" of the patient. Whether or not a double bypass works does not rely on the surgery skill of the patient. falcon2424 posted:
IN the real world teachers are role models, substitute parents, and social workers, along with class room managers and communicators. Also what is the "ability of a student". If you are saying it is "performance on a standardized test" I don't think that many people in education would ever agree with you. (I know you agree with that, just saying it again for emphasis.) If you have a student who does not read or do work at all, and skips class, and is starting drugs, and a teacher gets them motivated to open a book, and come to class, and think about their future, I think the teacher succeeded and is a great teacher, but none of that will ever reliably be captured on Scantron forms from the state capital. falcon2424 posted:
Teachers rarely control the curriculum and they never control the standardized testing regime. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Using seniority IS relying solely on data as an objective performance measurement, it's just using "years worked" as the sole data point. The problem with using student outcomes as a measure of teacher performance is that teacher ability is only one of many factors that affect student achievement, and it arguably isn't necessarily the biggest factor either. It's not just a matter of test scores, the fact of the matter is that it's incredibly difficult to isolate the cause of a change in a student's academic performance. The methods I've heard of involve either subjective evaluations by administrators (obviously subjective) or looking at students' past academic history and, well, did little Johnny's grades plummet in fifth grade because Mr. Smith is a bad teacher, or did they plummet because his parents are going through a loud and painful divorce and they're too busy screaming at each other or trying to win Johnny's favor with expensive gifts to bother helping him with his homework? evilweasel posted:I'd like to see this data. For what it's worth, I could swear I remember seeing it once too - the gist was that if there isn't one clear thing that directly leads to higher performance on the metrics (such as pressing a button more times or assembling more widgets), merit pay isn't really all that effective because the connection between what they're doing and how they're getting paid is too abstract, so either they don't see a clear connection between their behavior changes and their salary or they simply don't know what behavior changes to make in order to improve their performance. I can't find the study, though - I don't have journal access and searching for anything related to merit pay is a minefield of biased articles and idological screeds. I did, however, find this article that doesn't have anything to do with teachers but sinks to the very heart of the merit pay debate - and another critical flaw that's often ignored in it: quote:Ken O'Brien was an NFL quarterback in the 1980s and 1990s. Early in his career, he threw a lot of interceptions, so one clever team lawyer wrote a clause into O'Brien's contract penalizing him for each one he threw. The incentive worked as intended: His interceptions plummeted. But that's because he stopped throwing the ball. Naturally, it's pretty easy to see where the "focusing illusion" effect the article describes would lead; schools already hyperfocus on "teaching to the test" to the point of neglecting subjects that won't be on the big standardized tests, and tying teacher pay to standardized test performance would only discourage teachers from "wasting" time teaching anything that isn't on the standardized tests. But that's not the only problem. Of course, teacher performance is not a "one-variable" problem where there's just one thing a teacher has to do better in order to improve their students' outcomes. Merit pay, though, is only useful if one assumes that there are clear variables that teachers can target for improvement. "Teach better and we'll pay you more" is only useful if there is a clear route for teachers to improve their teaching that they could have taken at any time but won't bother to until an incentive is given. If a teacher is already doing their very best, but their outcomes are still poor, then cutting their pay doesn't actually tell them what they're doing wrong or show them what they need to do to improve. It doesn't teach them why their teaching style isn't working or what would work better, and the nature of a classroom means that a teacher can't really experiment with their teaching style on the fly. In other words, merit pay is only useful for lazy teachers that could be doing better but just don't bother to - for everyone else, it's just an excuse to cut pay across the board and screw unpopular employees. And that means that merit pay is only worth instituting if you think that there's an epidemic of lovely, lazy teachers who are deliberately half-assing their teaching. For teachers that are genuinely trying, the "good management" described at the end of the article which helps employees to find the right ways to improve is far better than cutting their base pay, giving them an incentive structure, and telling them to figure out how to teach better if they want to be able to continue to afford their mortgages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:That's what's confusing me about the whole argument. Reckless driving is a visible crime. It's like speeding. How could a car be driving recklessly without breaking any laws, or creating any articulable reason to stop the vehicle? California's position is, and current case law supports, that a LEO need not actually witness the illegality in order to have sufficient suspicion to conduct a limited seizure. Such suspicion can arise from an anonymous tip. The question at issue is whether the anonymous tip in this case provided such sufficient suspicion. Typically, this requires an analysis of whether the anonymous tip is sufficiently reliable and can be corroborated. California's position (basically because that typical analysis sinks their case) is that a court should consider other factors, such as the potential magnitude of harm resulting from the illegality alleged in the anonymous tip. --- Kalman posted:It's not an exigent circumstances case. It's far more analogous to a Terry stop, which only requires reasonable suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Coaches aren't measured on Joe Leftfielders ability to .300 after hitting .290 or whatever or Dave Receivers ability to catch 80 balls rather than 90 balls. Even if they were, that is completely different as athletes are motivated and in effective support systems where the coach may have an effect that isn't completely overridden by other effects, like poverty, or being 9 years old, or not being motivated to take a test. Moreover, Coaches spend hours and hours a day with an athlete, over a time of years. Teachers get a kid for 40 minutes, for nine months, once in their life. Of the examples you mentioned though, that is probably the closest analogy to teachers. Yes, they are. Sabermetricians measure a manager's ability by looking at the way his players improve, and whether the team performs in a way that's greater than the sum of its parts. Measuring improvement is much better than measuring raw performance, because sometimes you coach the Yankees (teach in a rich neighbourhood) and sometimes you coach the Blue Jays (teach in a poor neighbourhood). However, although this is the best way to measure merit, you're absolutely right that students are not athletes and merit-based pay is a bad idea. That article Main Paineframe explains that the best solution is to do some actual managing and figure it out on a more individual level, not trying to set a standard to compare all teachers in the country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:IN the real world teachers are role models, substitute parents, and social workers, along with class room managers and communicators. Also what is the "ability of a student". If you are saying it is "performance on a standardized test" I don't think that many people in education would ever agree with you. (I know you agree with that, just saying it again for emphasis.) I'm defining 'ability' as whatever it is we're trying to create by putting kids in school. If a class isn't designed to change any of a kids knowledge/skills/whatever, then it should be scrapped as useless. So, I'm taking it as given that we have some reasonable intuition for the kinds of abilities that we're concerned with. Then, I'm asserting that scantron scores are correlated with ability. The problems are that they're (1) weakly correlated and (2) correlated with other stuff, too. A legitimate concern about the current scantrons is that the correlation with important-abilities (reading comprehension) is so-weak that using them for performance pay creates an incentive for teachers to focus on unimportant scantron skills (filling in the bubbles). But that's a problem with the current tests, not a general rejection of the idea that we can define or measure student progress ever. If a teacher really asserts that they can't define/measure changes in student ability, then how on earth are they giving any kind of useful feedback, let alone any sort of justifiable grade? ---- And I'm totally lost about your example. Motivating a student to read, do work and come to class would absolutely make a difference on their scantron scores. What on earth would make you think otherwise? E: But again, you said this is something you've looked into a lot. I'd love to see the papers that you're referencing. Could you post them when you get a chance? I'm curious to see how the research you like has defined 'ability' when showing that it's primarily driven by experience. falcon2424 fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
I created a union thread because this one is still ostensibly about the Supreme Court docket and because Harris v. Quinn isn't really about teachers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Yes, but Scalia was all like "WHAT ABOUT ANONYMOUS TIPS ABOUT ATOM BOMBS ON THE ROAD!?" during OA. I think OneEightHundred's point is simply that Scalia's factual hypothetical would be addressed by the exigent circumstances doctrine, which in turn still requires probable cause to establish that the exigency exists. Which I agree with insofar that the hypothetical would be addressed by the exigent circumstances doctrine. I was never clear on what level of suspicion that the exigency existed was required, basically because the cases I encountered was "cop saw blood, heard gunshots, was chasing dude, etc." and therefore it was clear that the exigency simply existed. But, yay! Consensus! quote:A second major argument advanced by Florida and the United States as amicus is, in essence, that the standard Terry analysis should be modified to license a "firearm exception." Under such an exception, a tip alleging an illegal gun would justify a stop and frisk even if the accusation would fail standard pre-search reliability testing. We decline to adopt this position. I'll be surprised if it doesn't go 9-0 against California. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Another district court joins the fray of ruling bans on homosexual marriage unconstitutional under the 14th ammendment. I think the state judges are having fun with quoting Scalias Windsor dissent on this issue. http://www.scribd.com/doc/207069119/2-13-cv-00395-135 As far as I understand, that means, assuming the circuits uphold all of them on appeal, that all but the 5th have a (potential*) appeal case holding marriage discrimination based on sexual preference unconstitutional. If all the lower courts agree (a big "if", I know), would the Supreme Court still take the case to hammer home the fact, or how does that work? I understand they might take it, if there are divided interpretations, to clarify the issue, but what if there is agreement? * Haven't kept up on whether the cases were in fact all appealed. GhostBoy fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Feb 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 10:32
|
|
|
SCOTUS will take a case if they think the issue is important enough, regardless of whether the circuit courts agree on the issue. It's just that such a sufficiently important issue is not as common as disagreement between circuits, so most litigants tout the "circuit split" rationale to pique the Court's interest rather than "this is a big loving deal" rationale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:SCOTUS will take a case if they think the issue is important enough, regardless of whether the circuit courts agree on the issue. It's just that such a sufficiently important issue is not as common as disagreement between circuits, so most litigants tout the "circuit split" rationale to pique the Court's interest rather than "this is a big loving deal" rationale. Cool. Thanks for clarifying it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Would the SCOTUS even take up this case rather than just point to the recent Windsor ruling and let all the lower court bans remain in place? I can't imagine these ending in a 5-4 split. Surely at the very least Roberts would cross the aisle and side with the liberal justices + Kennedy. I could just as easily see it end 1-8 with Scalia being the lone(or definitely the loudest) voice against it. Further immortalized in court records as the shithead everyone knows him to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
I dunno, I can see Thomas doing an encore performance of his dissent in Lawrence. "This law is stupid, and I would certainly vote to repeat it, but STATESRIGHTS."
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:SCOTUS will take a case if they think the issue is important enough, regardless of whether the circuit courts agree on the issue. It's just that such a sufficiently important issue is not as common as disagreement between circuits, so most litigants tout the "circuit split" rationale to pique the Court's interest rather than "this is a big loving deal" rationale. It's not circuit splits, but there are a good number of state supreme court splits on the topic of substantial nexus (as elaborated in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and mail order/internet sales, yet the Supreme Court has no problem rejecting every appeal since Quill Corp, referring to their suggestion in that decision that Congress do something instead of leaving a non-existant guidance on what the physical presence criteria is, exactly, which has made State and Local Tax practices some of the most lucrative ones (as every state and jurisdiction basically does what they want unless it's clearly in violation of Quill Corp or its predecessor, National Bellas Hess v. Illinois).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:It's not circuit splits, but there are a good number of state supreme court splits on the topic of substantial nexus (as elaborated in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and mail order/internet sales, yet the Supreme Court has no problem rejecting every appeal since Quill Corp, referring to their suggestion in that decision that Congress do something instead of leaving a non-existant guidance on what the physical presence criteria is, exactly, which has made State and Local Tax practices some of the most lucrative ones (as every state and jurisdiction basically does what they want unless it's clearly in violation of Quill Corp or its predecessor, National Bellas Hess v. Illinois). If so, I would agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
If Congress abolished all inferior Federal courts, would the SC be forced to hear all cases of federal jurisdiction? Yes I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I think your point is that the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and therefore can decide to not take a case even if the circumstances would seem to compel granting certiorari? Pretty much, yeah - they're pretty content to shoot down state tax cases (particularly nexus issues) while shouting "CONGRESS FIX IT!" despite Congress's last (significant) foray into that field was probably Public Law 86-272 back in 1959, which allows for de facto violations of the dormant commerce clause to run unabated (and therefore makes interstate business in most fields a veritable minefield of potential litigation). Edit: And the Supreme Court's best brightline decision on the matter was probably Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady which gave a four prong test with regards to determining if a state tax law is constitutional under the commerce clause, but even then they didn't clarify substantial nexus (which leads to previously mentioned mess) nor the other prongs (although the nexus one is the real issue in most state and local tax litigation, anyway). Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If Congress abolished all inferior Federal courts, would the SC be forced to hear all cases of federal jurisdiction? Yes I think. ThirdPartyView posted:Pretty much, yeah - they're pretty content to shoot down state tax cases (particularly nexus issues) while shouting "CONGRESS FIX IT!" despite Congress's last (significant) foray into that field was probably Public Law 86-272 back in 1959, which allows for de facto violations of the dormant commerce clause to run unabated (and therefore makes interstate business in most fields a veritable minefield of potential litigation). May or may not be an actual quote.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Couldn't a defendant in state court on a federal question or with diversity motion to move it to the SC though? I guess they could now but maybe the rules would change if there was only one court. Where would Maryland sue Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Where would Maryland sue Pennsylvania. Pretty certain that's one of the few actual original jurisdiction case types that the Supreme Court is obligated to take up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Pretty certain that's one of the few actual original jurisdiction case types that the Supreme Court is obligated to take up. Tricky question, that. The Supreme Court does not consider itself required to handle even original jurisdiction cases. There's a law review article out there that I found a while back discussing this, I'll try to dig it up. e: http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/vol45_2/vol45_me_l_rev_185.pdf eviltastic fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Hahaha I love our Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Couldn't a defendant in state court on a federal question or with diversity motion to move it to the SC though? eviltastic posted:The Supreme Court does not consider itself required to handle even original jurisdiction cases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Tricky question, that. The Supreme Court does not consider itself required to handle even original jurisdiction cases. There's a law review article out there that I found a while back discussing this, I'll try to dig it up. Not that it really matters, since all the Supreme Court does is hand off the trial phase to a special master anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Does anybody here want to explain Granholm v. Heald to me? I read up on it and it would seem it makes it legal to buy direct from wineries, but maintains that it's illegal to buy direct from beer breweries. Is this accurate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Does anybody here want to explain Granholm v. Heald to me? I read up on it and it would seem it makes it legal to buy direct from wineries, but maintains that it's illegal to buy direct from beer breweries. Is this accurate? No. The second to last paragraph of the majority opinion sums it up pretty well: quote:States have broad power to regulate liquor under § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment. This power, however, does not allow States to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers. If a State chooses to allow direct shipment of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms. Without demonstrating the need for discrimination, New York and Michigan have enacted regulations that disadvantage out-of-state wine producers. Under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, these regulations cannot stand. So states can ban buying direct from wineries or from beer breweries. What they can't do is let in-state wineries or breweries sell direct but not let out-of-state wineries or breweries sell direct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
There have been a lot of SCOTUS decisions this week. The big one is Fernandez v California, where the Court held it was constitutional for police to search a dwelling even if one occupant disagrees, even if the disagreeing occupant is arrested and another occupant's consent is later received. In the case, the police were searching for an alleged robber and heard screaming from an apartment. Police knocked and met a woman who looked beaten. They requested a search, where the woman agreed, but the robber appeared and refused the search. The police suspected domestic abuse, so they arrested the alleged robber and then came back to search the apartment without a warrant. The woman agreed to the search and the police found a gun and clothing of the alleged robber. This evidence was used to convict the robber. The majority opinion found this okay and stated that not allowing a woman to consent to this search would be disrespecting women's autonomy. The female justices dissented, stating that warrantless searches like these must met greater standards. They also stated the suspicion of domestic abuse did not justify such infringement of the Fourth Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 18:01
|
|
